Authologic

Verifying a cryptographically issued credential replaces judgment, so wherever a national or bank identity is available no model decides anything. Behavioral analysis, a fraud score and the document, liveness and face matching fallbacks are where models sit, and the scheme aggregation, routing and OmniPanel analytics the company sells would all remain without them.

Routing stands in for review: scenarios are set against a client's risk profile, and automatic fallback moves a user to another method when one fails. Those are resilience settings, with no confidence threshold, manual review queue or appeal described, and nothing on what happens to a person no method can verify.

Judgment enters only through the fraud probability score, whose calibration and threshold guidance are not described. False accept and false reject rates, benchmarks and independent tests are unpublished for that score and for the document and face matching methods alike.

Named clients include mElements, the mBank Group ecommerce arm behind Paynow, alongside LV Bet and Intrum, and manual document verification was replaced for mElements as its marketplace grew. That result carries no figure, and the five minute claim on the homepage measures SDK integration rather than a customer outcome.

Reuse of verification records, document images or biometric captures to train the fraud models is not addressed, and pooling of fraud signals across clients is left unstated. Its privacy argument limits what a business learns about a person, which covers the client's exposure rather than the firm's own use of the data.

Privacy is built into the architecture: clients set their own retention rules, disclosure is pulled attribute by attribute rather than as a whole identity record, and zero knowledge proofs confirm age and personhood without exposing the data beneath. Default retention, data processing terms and the handling of open banking account data are not described.

ISO 27001 for security and ISO 22301 for continuity lead a list of audited certifications that also covers quality management and card data security, and continuity weighs heavily for a supplier whose outage would stall onboarding. Edition, certificate number and certifying body are not given, and a GDPR mark sits in the same row although no body certifies against that regulation.

Supervised standing comes from a PSD2 Account Information Service authorization listed among the certificates and licenses, which is more than enrollment in an access program. Trust service provider status under the European identity framework adds a published trust service policy, terms and a status list for revoking attestations.

Fallback is where bias would enter: users without a national credential drop to document and biometric checks, and face matching carries a documented demographic error surface. Adoption figures the firm itself published show how uneven the base is, 3.2 million French credentials against more than 11 million users of the Polish scheme, yet it gives no verification or error rates by method, country or group.

A person refused sees only a rejection from the business they approached, though the failure may sit with a government scheme, a bank identity provider or the fraud score. Notice, explanation and a correction route are all unpublished, as is any word on who bears the loss.

Identity supply is enumerated in detail, scheme by scheme and wallet by wallet, while the model supply chain is not: no provider, family or version is given for the behavioral analysis, the fraud score or the biometric capability. Which pieces are built in house and which are orchestrated from third parties is not said, and no subprocessor list appears.

Integration is the product: more than 28 national and bank identity schemes are covered by name, among them Diia in Ukraine, itsme in Belgium and MitID in Denmark, each with its own protocol and consent model. Apple and Google wallets and the European Digital Identity Wallet are supported, reached through an SDK, a no code link or an API with public developer documentation.

Hosting is multi tenant, with no cloud provider, region or single tenant option named and nothing on where verification records rest. Several of the sovereign identity schemes it brokers set conditions on where derived data may be processed, which makes that silence pointed.

Pricing and the basis of charge are both unpublished, a real gap for an orchestration product whose methods differ in cost, since a national identity check, an open banking retrieval and a document plus liveness check carry different economics. A demonstration and a wallet testing environment let a buyer see the product before any contract.

Financial services, gaming and crypto sit among the segments served, with document verification across more than 200 countries, and trade press credits the firm with a contribution to Poland's mObywatel application. The site is built around verification methods, not institution types.